Corticosteroid therapy for sepsis: a clinical practice guideline

Evaluation of the efficacy of silymarin and dexmedetomidine on kidney and lung tissue in the treatment of sepsis in rats with cecal perforation

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that develops in the host against microorganisms. This response develops away from the primary infection site and results in end-organ damage. The present study aimed to investigate the protective and therapeutic effects on lung and kidney tissue of silymarin (S) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) applied 1 h before and after sepsis induced by the cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) method in rats. A total of 62 rats was randomly divided into eight groups: i) Control (n=6); ii) cecal perforation (CLP; n=8); iii) S + CLP (n=8; S + CLP; S administered 1 h before CPL); iv) CLP + S (n=8; S administered 1 h after CLP); v) DEX + CLP (n=8; D + CLP; DEX administered 1 h before CLP); vi) CLP + D (n=8; DEX administered 1 h after CLP); vii) SD + CLP (n=8; S and DEX administered 1 h before CLP) and viii) CLP + SD (n=8; S and DEX administered 1 h after CLP). After the cecum filled with stool, it was tied with 3/0 silk under the ileocecal valve and the anterior surface of the cecum was punctured twice with an 18-gauge needle. A total of 100 mg/kg silymarin and 100 µg/kg DEX were administered intraperitoneally to the treatment groups. Lung and kidney tissue samples were collected to evaluate biochemical and histopathological parameters. In the histopathological examination, all parameters indicating kidney injury; interstitial edema, peritubular capillary dilatation, vacuolization, ablation of tubular epithelium from the basement membrane, loss of brush border in the proximal tubule epithelium, cell swelling and nuclear defragmentation; were increased in the CLP compared with the control group. Silymarin administration increased kidney damage, including ablation of tubular epithelium from the basement membrane, compared with that in the CLP group. DEX significantly reduced kidney damage compared with the CLP and silymarin groups. The co-administration of DEX + silymarin decreased kidney damage, although it was not as effective as DEX-alone. To conclude, intraperitoneal DEX ameliorated injury in CLP rats. DEX + silymarin partially ameliorated injury but silymarin administration increased damage. As a result, silymarin has a negative effects with this dosage and DEX has a protective effect. In the present study, it was determined that using the two drugs together had a greater therapeutic effect than silymarin and no differences in the effects were not observed any when the application times of the agents were changed.

Corticosteroids for infectious critical illness: A multicenter target trial emulation stratified by predicted organ dysfunction trajectory

Corticosteroids decrease the duration of organ dysfunction in a range of infectious critical illnesses, but their risk and benefit are not fully defined using this construct. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate the association between usage of corticosteroids and mortality of patients with infectious critical illness by emulating a target trial framework. The study employed a novel stratification method with predictive machine learning (ML) subphenotyping based on organ dysfunction trajectory. Our analysis revealed that corticosteroids' effectiveness varied depending on the stratification method. The ML-based approach identified four distinct subphenotypes, two of which had a large enough sample size in our patient cohorts for further evaluation: "Rapidly Improving" (RI) and "Rapidly Worsening," (RW) which showed divergent responses to corticosteroid treatment. Specifically, the RW group either benefited or were not harmed from corticosteroids, whereas the RI group appeared to derive harm. In the development cohort, which comprised of a combination of patients from the eICU and MIMIC-IV datasets, hazard ratio estimates for the primary outcome, 28-day mortality, in the RW group was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.96 - 1.04) whereas for the RW group, it was 1.40 (95% CI: 1.28 - 1.54). For the validation cohort, which comprised of patients from the Critical carE Database for Advanced Research, estimates for 28-day mortality for the RW and RI groups were 1.24 (95% CI: 1.05 - 1.46) and 1.34 (95% CI: 1.14 - 1.59), respectively. For secondary outcomes, the RW group had a shorter time to ICU discharge and time to cessation of mechanical ventilation with corticosteroid treatment, where the RI group again demonstrated harm. The findings support matching treatment strategies to empirically observed pathobiology and offer a more nuanced understanding of corticosteroid utility. Our results have implications for the design and interpretation of both observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), suggesting the need for stratification methods that account for the differential response to standard of care.

An infection-microenvironment-targeted and responsive peptide-drug nanosystem for sepsis emergency by suppressing infection and inflammation

Sepsis is a life-threatening emergency that causes millions of deaths every year due to severe infection and inflammation. Nevertheless, current therapeutic regimens are inadequate to promptly address the vast diversity of potential pathogens. Omiganan, an antimicrobial peptide, has shown promise for neutralizing endotoxins and eliminating diverse pathogens. However, its clinical application is hindered by safety and stability concerns. Herein, we present a nanoscale drug delivery system (Omi-hyd-Dex@HA NPs) that selectively targets infectious microenvironments (IMEs) and responds to specific stimuli for efficient intervention in sepsis. The system consists of omiganan-dexamethasone conjugates linked by hydrazone bonds which self-assemble into nanoparticles coated with a hyaluronic acid (HA). The HA coating not only facilitates IMEs-targeting through interaction with intercellular-adhesion-molecule-1 on inflamed endotheliocytes, but also improves the biosafety of the nanosystem and enhances drug accumulation in primary infection sites triggered by hyaluronidase. The nanoparticles release dual drugs in IMEs through pH-sensitive cleavage of hydrazone bonds to eradicate pathogens and suppress inflammation. In multiple tissue infection and sepsis animal models, Omi-hyd-Dex@HA NPs exhibited rapid source control and comprehensive inflammation reduction, thereby preventing subsequent fatal complications and significantly improving survival outcomes. The bio-responsive and self-delivering nanosystem offers a promising strategy for systemic sepsis treatment in emergencies.

HAT therapy for sepsis: A review of the therapeutic rationale and current clinical evaluation status

Vitamin C-based cluster therapy, which involves the combined application of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine (HAT), is a recently proposed new treatment option for sepsis on top of conventional treatment. This therapy has a strong theoretical basis, but its clinical efficacy remains inconclusive. This review summarizes the rationale for HAT therapy for sepsis and describes the evaluation of its efficacy in clinical observational studies and randomized controlled trials, with the aim of providing a reference for the future clinical practice application of HAT therapy in sepsis.

The Timing of Initiating Hydrocortisone and Long-term Mortality in Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on the association between the timing of corticosteroid administration and mortality in septic shock focused only on short-term mortality and produced conflicting results. We performed a retrospective review of a large administrative database of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to evaluate the association between the timing of hydrocortisone initiation and short- and long-term mortality in septic shock. We hypothesized that a longer duration between the first vasopressor use for sepsis and steroid initiation was associated with increased mortality.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Medical Information Mart in the Intensive Care-IV database. We included adults who met Sepsis-3 definition for septic shock and received hydrocortisone. The exposure of interest was the time in hours from vasopressor use to hydrocortisone initiation (>12 as late and ≤12 as early). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between exposure and mortality. Competing risk regression models were used to evaluate the association between exposure and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 844 patients were included in this cohort: 553 in the early group and 291 in the late group. The median time to hydrocortisone initiation was 7 hours (interquartile range, 2.0-19.0 hours). After multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, we found that hydrocortisone initiation >12 hours after vasopressor use was associated with increased 1-year mortality when compared with initiation <12 hours (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.71; P = .002, E-value = 2.13). Hydrocortisone initiation >12 hours was also associated with increased 28-day, 90-day, and in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with septic shock, initiating hydrocortisone >12 hours after vasopressor use was associated with an increased risk of both short-term and long-term mortality, and a prolonged length of hospital stay.

Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis (RECORDS): study protocol for a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids affect variably survival in sepsis trials, suggesting heterogeneity in patients' response to corticosteroids. The RECORDS (Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis) trial aimed at defining endotypes associated with adults with sepsis responsiveness to corticosteroids.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RECORDS, a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial, will randomly assign to a biomarker stratum 1800 adults with community-acquired pneumonia, vasopressor-dependent sepsis, septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In each stratum, patients will be randomly assigned to receive a 7-day course of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone or their placebos. Patients with COVID-19 will be treated with a 10-day standard course of dexamethasone and randomised to fludrocortisone or its placebo. Primary outcome will be 90-day death or persistent organ dysfunction. Large simulation study will be performed across a range of plausible scenarios to foresee power to detect a 5%-10% absolute difference with corticosteroids. We will assess subset-by-treatment interaction by estimating in a Bayesian framework two quantities: (1) measure of influence, relying on the value of the estimation of corticosteroids' effect in each subset, and (2) measure of interaction.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Dijon, France), on 6 April 2020. Trial results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04280497).

Utility of monocyte HLA-DR and rationale for therapeutic GM-CSF in sepsis immunoparalysis

Sepsis, a heterogeneous clinical syndrome, features a systemic inflammatory response to tissue injury or infection, followed by a state of reduced immune responsiveness. Measurable alterations occur in both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Immunoparalysis, an immunosuppressed state, associates with worsened outcomes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, secondary infections, and increased mortality. Multiple immune markers to identify sepsis immunoparalysis have been proposed, and some might offer clinical utility. Sepsis immunoparalysis is characterized by reduced lymphocyte numbers and downregulation of class II human leukocyte antigens (HLA) on innate immune monocytes. Class II HLA proteins present peptide antigens for recognition by and activation of antigen-specific T lymphocytes. One monocyte class II protein, mHLA-DR, can be measured by flow cytometry. Downregulated mHLA-DR indicates reduced monocyte responsiveness, as measured by ex-vivo cytokine production in response to endotoxin stimulation. Our literature survey reveals low mHLA-DR expression on peripheral blood monocytes correlates with increased risks for infection and death. For mHLA-DR, 15,000 antibodies/cell appears clinically acceptable as the lower limit of immunocompetence. Values less than 15,000 antibodies/cell are correlated with sepsis severity; and values at or less than 8000 antibodies/cell are identified as severe immunoparalysis. Several experimental immunotherapies have been evaluated for reversal of sepsis immunoparalysis. In particular, sargramostim, a recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhu GM-CSF), has demonstrated clinical benefit by reducing hospitalization duration and lowering secondary infection risk. Lowered infection risk correlates with increased mHLA-DR expression on peripheral blood monocytes in these patients. Although mHLA-DR has shown promising utility for identifying sepsis immunoparalysis, absence of a standardized, analytically validated method has thus far prevented widespread adoption. A clinically useful approach for patient inclusion and identification of clinically correlated output parameters could address the persistent high unmet medical need for effective targeted therapies in sepsis.

Comparison of Different Antiviral Regimens in the Treatment of Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes respiratory disorders, with disease severity ranging from asymptomatic to critical manifestations. The current retrospective study compared the efficacies of different antiviral regimens used in patients suffering from severe COVID-19 disease from 19 January 2020 to December 2021 in a single center in Saudi Arabia. In total, 188 patients were enrolled in the current study, including 158 patients treated with different antiviral regimens, and 30 who did not receive any antiviral treatment. Different antiviral regimens, including favipiravir, remdesivir, oseltamivir, favipiravir/remdesivir, and favipiravir/oseltamivir were adopted. The effects of using different antivirals and antibiotics on the survival rate were evaluated, as well as the presence of comorbidities. Among all severely affected patients, 39/188 (20.7%) survived. Both age and comorbidities, including diabetes and hypertension, were significantly correlated with high case fatality following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remdesivir alone and the combination of favipiravir and remdesivir increased the survival rate. Surprisingly, both imipenem and linezolid helped in the deterioration of disease outcome in the patients. A negative correlation was detected between increased mortality and the use of favipiravir and the use of either imipenem or linezolid. Among the compared antiviral regimens used in the treatment of severe COVID-19, remdesivir was found to be an effective antiviral that reduces COVID-19 case fatality. Antibiotic treatment using imipenem and/or linezolid should be carefully re-evaluated.

White blood cell count trajectory and mortality in septic shock: a historical cohort study

PURPOSE

Septic shock is associated with a mortality of 20-40%. The white blood cell count (WBC) at hospital admission correlates with prognosis in septic shock. Here, we explore whether the trajectory of WBC after admission provides further information about outcomes. We aimed to identify groups of patients with different WBC trajectories and the association of WBC trajectory with mortality.

METHODS

We included adult patients with septic shock in two academic intensive care units (ICU) in Winnipeg, MB, Canada between 2006 and 2012. We used group-based trajectory analysis to group patients according to their WBC patterns over the first seven days in the ICU. Our primary analysis was the association of WBC trajectory group on 30-day mortality using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

We included 917 patients with septic shock. The final model identified seven distinct WBC trajectories. The rising WBC trajectory was independently associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.86 to 6.26; P < 0.001) compared with the stable WBC trajectory.

CONCLUSION

In patients with septic shock, distinct and clinically relevant groups can be identified by analyzing WBC trajectories. A rising WBC trajectory was associated with higher mortality.

SOCS3 limits TNF and endotoxin-induced endothelial dysfunction by blocking a required autocrine interleukin 6 signal in human endothelial cells

Increased circulating levels of soluble interleukin (IL)-6 receptor α (sIL-6Rα) are commonly observed during inflammatory responses, allowing for IL-6 signaling in cells that express the ubiquitous receptor subunit gp130 but not IL-6Rα, such as endothelial cells. Activation of Toll-like receptor (TLR)-4 or the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor leads to NF-κB-dependent increases in endothelial IL-6 expression. Thus, we hypothesize that danger signals may induce autocrine IL-6 signaling within the endothelium via sIL-6Rα-mediated trans-signaling. In support of this hypothesis, we recently demonstrated that conditional deletion in the endothelium of the IL-6 signaling inhibitor SOCS3 leads to rapid mortality in mice challenged with the TLR-4 agonist endotoxin through increases in vascular leakage, thrombosis, leukocyte adhesion, and a type I-like interferon response. Here, we sought to directly test a role for sIL-6Rα in LPS-treated human umbilical vein and dermal blood microvascular endothelial cells. We show that co-treatment with sIL-6Rα dramatically increases the loss of barrier function and the expression of COX2 and tissue factor mRNA levels induced by LPS. This co-treatment led to a strong activation of STAT1 and STAT3 while not affecting LPS-induced activation of p38 and NF-κB signaling. Similar results were obtained when sIL-6Rα was added to a TNF challenge. JAK inhibition by pretreatment with ruxolitinib or by SOCS3 overexpression blunted LPS and sIL-6R synergistic effects, while SOCS3 knockdown further increased the response. Together, these findings demonstrate that IL-6 signaling downstream of NF-kB activation leads to a strong endothelial activation and may explain the acute endotheliopathy observed during critical illness.

Clinical Utilization of Stress Dose Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients With Septic Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study at a Large Academic Medical Center

Background: The use of stress dose corticosteroids, specifically, hydrocortisone, in septic shock is heterogeneous, and current clinical trials yield conflicting results. Regardless, they are still recommended by guidelines for vasopressor-dependent septic shock. Objectives: This study sought to characterize current practice of hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock and secondarily to compare clinical outcomes of those who received hydrocortisone to those who did not. Methods: This single center, retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with septic shock admitted to a tertiary care center between 2012 and 2017. Patients receiving hydrocortisone for at least two doses were compared to those without. Results: 3411 septic shock patients were included; 1593 (47%) received hydrocortisone and 1818 (53%) did not. Patients who received hydrocortisone had higher lactate (4.0 vs 3.4 mmol/L; P < .01) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III scores (104.1 vs 91.0; P < .01). Vasopressor duration was 1.7 days longer in the hydrocortisone group (P < .01), and the hydrocortisone group had higher hospital mortality (52% vs 38%; P < .01). A propensity score-matched population was conducted in patients with APACHE scores >100: vasopressor duration was longer in those who received hydrocortisone (3.9 vs 2.0 days; P < .01), and hospital mortality was higher (59.3% vs 53.1%; P = .036); however, after multivariable adjustment, no association between receipt of hydrocortisone and hospital mortality was detected (OR 1.2 [95% CI .9-1.6]). Conclusions: Patients who received hydrocortisone were more severely ill than those that did not, making retrospective evaluation of this question challenging. These results highlight the wide variability and heterogeneity in hydrocortisone use in clinical practice.

Vitamin C for ≥ 5 days is associated with decreased hospital mortality in sepsis subgroups: a nationwide cohort study

Background

Previous randomized trials of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine on sepsis were limited by short-term vitamin C administration, heterogeneous populations, and the failure to evaluate each component’s effect. The purpose of this study was to determine whether vitamin C alone for ≥ 5 days or in combination with corticosteroids and/or thiamine was associated with decreased mortality across the sepsis population and subpopulation.

Methods

Nationwide population-based study conducted using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. A total of 384,282 adult patients with sepsis who were admitted to the intensive care unit were enrolled from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, while the key secondary outcome was 90-day mortality.

Results

The mean [standard deviation] age was 69.0 [15.4] years; 57% were male; and 36,327 (9%) and 347,955 did and did not receive vitamin C, respectively. After propensity score matching, each group involved 36,327 patients. The hospital mortality was lower by − 0.9% in the treatment group (17.1% vs 18.0%; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to − 0.5%; p < 0.001), a significant but extremely small difference. However, mortality decreased greater in patients who received vitamin C for ≥ 5 days (vs 1–2 or 3–4 days) (15.8% vs 18.8% vs 18.3%; p < 0.001). Further, vitamin C was associated with a lower hospital mortality in patients with older age, multiple comorbidities, pneumonia, genitourinary infection, septic shock, and mechanical ventilation. Consistent findings were found for 90-day mortality. Moreover, vitamin C alone or in combination with thiamine was significantly associated with decreased hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Intravenous vitamin C of ≥ 5 days was significantly associated with decreased hospital and 90-day mortality in sepsis patients. Vitamin C combined with corticosteroids and/or thiamine in specific sepsis subgroups warrants further study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03872-3.

Administration of parenteral vitamin C in patients with severe infection: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature.

Objective

We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available.

Results

Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses.

Conclusions

The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020209187; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209187

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/33989

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Control between Drug Repurposing and Vaccination: A Comprehensive Overview

Respiratory viruses represent a major public health concern, as they are highly mutated, resulting in new strains emerging with high pathogenicity. Currently, the world is suffering from the newly evolving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This virus is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a mild-to-severe respiratory tract infection with frequent ability to give rise to fatal pneumonia in humans. The overwhelming outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world, urging scientists to put an end to this global pandemic through biological and pharmaceutical interventions. Currently, there is no specific treatment option that is capable of COVID-19 pandemic eradication, so several repurposed drugs and newly conditionally approved vaccines are in use and heavily applied to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergence of new variants of the virus that partially or totally escape from the immune response elicited by the approved vaccines requires continuous monitoring of the emerging variants to update the content of the developed vaccines or modify them totally to match the new variants. Herein, we discuss the potential therapeutic and prophylactic interventions including repurposed drugs and the newly developed/approved vaccines, highlighting the impact of virus evolution on the immune evasion of the virus from currently licensed vaccines for COVID-19.

Potential role of herbal medicines as a novel approach in sepsis treatment

The growing number of deaths related to sepsis has become a major concern for past few years. Sepsis is a complex pathological reactions that is explained by series of host response to microbial insult. The resulted systemic reactions are manifested by early appearance of proinflammatory cytokines leading to hyperinflammatory phase which is followed by septic shock and death of the patient. The present study has revealed that antibiotics are not self-sufficient to control the complex mechanism of sepsis. Moreover prolonged and unnecessary administration of antibiotics may lead to antibiotic resistance to pathogens. In addition to this, immunosuppressive medications are selective and have targeted approach to certain study population. Drugs from herbal origin have shown to possess a mammoth of immunomodulatory potential by suppressing proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines exhibiting no or minimal unwanted secondary responses. Concomitantly, herbal plants tend to modulate oxidative stress level and haematological imbalance during inflammatory diseased conditions. Natural compounds have gained much attention for the treatment of several clinical complications. Considering the promising responses of medicinal plants with less/no side effects and easy procurement, comprehensive research on herbal plants to treat sepsis should be contemplated.

Can Anakinra and corticosteroid treatment be an effective option in pregnant women with severe Covid-19?

Anakinra, which is an Interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist with the advancing disease process, has started to be considered as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 patients with cytokine storms. We evaluated the effect of corticosteroids and IL-1 receptor blockage with anakinra on pregnant patients with Covid-19 at high risk for respiratory distress, ongoing fever, deterioration in their general condition and consequently maternal and fetal complications. Fourteen pregnant women who received anakinra (median dosage: 400 mg) and corticosteroid (methylprednisolone-median dosage: 80 mg) treatment were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were assessed according to the World Health Organization (WHO) scale. The mortality rate of the cohort was 7.1%, the median hospitalization period of the patients was 15 days and 2 patients had premature births. Covid-19 was found to have a similar spectrum of symptoms in pregnant and non-pregnant women, such as dyspnea, cough and fever. Our study was the first to analyze the combined treatment of corticosteroid and anakinra in pregnant patients with pneumonia from Covid-19 based on the WHO scoring system. Due to the obscurity in the treatment process in pregnant patients, studies are ongoing on managing Covid-19 infection in these patients. We presume that the early use of anakinra and corticosteroid treatments in patients severely infected with Covid-19 may have positive effects on disease progression and survival.

Therapeutic Approaches in Modulating the Inflammatory and Immunological Response in Patients With Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Pancreatitis: An Expert Opinion Review

Immunomodulation has long been an adjunct approach in treating critically ill patients with sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and acute pancreatitis (AP). Hyperactive immune response with immunopathogenesis leads to organ dysfunction and alters the clinical outcomes in critically ill. Though the immune response in the critically ill might have been overlooked, it has gathered greater attention during this novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Modulating hyperactive immune response, the cytokine storm, especially with steroids, has shown to improve the outcomes in COVID-19 patients. In this review, we find that immune response pathogenesis in critically ill patients with sepsis, ARDS, and AP is nearly similar. The use of immunomodulators such as steroids, broad-spectrum serine protease inhibitors such as ulinastatin, thymosin alpha, intravenous immunoglobulins, and therapies such as CytoSorb and therapeutic plasma exchange may help in improving the clinical outcomes in these conditions. As the experience of the majority of physicians in using such therapeutics may be limited, we provide our expert comments regarding immunomodulation to optimize outcomes in patients with sepsis/septic shock, ARDS, and AP.

Evaluation of the Pharmacologic Treatment of COVID-19 Pandemic in Iraq

The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19) has been detrimental to human health, economy, and wellbeing. Little information is known on the epidemiology and outcome of the disease in a localized community within Iraq. We carried out an audit of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Kirkuk General Hospital. Data from the 20th of June to the 31st of July, 2020, were collected and analyzed. Suspected COVID-19 cases were confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Data on clinical symptoms, age, and treatment protocols were analyzed concerning the outcome. Our study included a total of 200 individual confirmed COVID-19 patients. The majority of cases 55% (n = 110) displayed severe symptoms, while 32.5% (65 cases) and 12.5% (25 cases) of patients displayed moderate to mild symptoms, respectively. The rate of death in the referred patients was 5%. Most patients admitted to the hospital for treatment recovered and were discharged from the hospital within 5 to 30 days post-diagnosis. Statistical analysis revealed that patients treated with oseltamivir, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin in combination with vitamins C and D have shorter hospital stay compared to patients receiving the same therapeutic protocol in combination with steroids. Moreover, a higher mortality rate (4.5%) was observed in patients treated with oseltamivir, hydroxychloroquine, ceftriaxone, and steroids. This study highlights a significant relationship between age, secondary ailments, and the choice of medications as simple predictors of the outcome of COVID-19.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and glucocorticoids in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by a wide spectrum of symptom severity, which is manifested at different phases of infection and demands different levels of care. Viral load, host innate-immune response to SARS-CoV-2, and comorbidities have a direct impact on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients and determine the diverse disease trajectories. The initial SARS-CoV-2 penetrance and replication in the host causes death of infected cells, determining the viral response. SARS-CoV-2 replication in the host triggers the activation of host antiviral immune mechanisms, determining the inflammatory response. While a healthy immune response is essential to eliminate infected cells and prevent spread of the virus, a dysfunctional immune response can result in a cytokine storm and hyperinflammation, contributing to disease progression.

Current therapies for COVID-19 target the virus and/or the host immune system and may be complicated in their efficacy by comorbidities. Here we review the evidence for use of two classes of anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of COVID-19. We consider the clinical evidence regarding the timing and efficacy of their use, their potential limitations, current recommendations and the prospect of future studies by these and related therapies.

Cyclosporine A plus low-dose steroid treatment in COVID-19 improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate to severe disease: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic causes high global morbidity and mortality and better medical treatments to reduce mortality are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the added benefit of cyclosporine A (CsA), to low-dose steroid treatment, in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Open-label, non randomized pilot study of patients with confirmed infection of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized from April to May 2020 at a single centre in Puebla, Mexico. Patients were assigned to receive either steroids or CsA plus steroids. Pneumonia severity was assessed by clinical, laboratory, and lung tomography. The death rate was evaluated at 28 days.

RESULTS

A total of 209 adult patients were studied, 105 received CsA plus steroids (age 55.3 ± 13.3; 69% men), and 104 steroids alone (age 54.06 ± 13.8; 61% men). All patients received clarithromycin, enoxaparin and methylprednisolone or prednisone up to 10 days. Patient's death was associated with hypertension (RR = 3.5) and diabetes (RR = 2.3). Mortality was 22 and 35% for CsA and control groups (P = 0.02), respectively, for all patients, and 24 and 48.5% for patients with moderate to severe disease (P = 0.001). Higher cumulative clinical improvement was seen for the CsA group (Nelson Aalen curve, P = 0.001, log-rank test) in moderate to severe patients. The Cox proportional hazard analysis showed the highest HR improvement value of 2.15 (1.39-3.34, 95%CI, P = 0.0005) for CsA treatment in moderate to severe patients, and HR = 1.95 (1.35-2.83, 95%CI, P = 0.0003) for all patients.

CONCLUSION

CsA used as an adjuvant to steroid treatment for COVID-19 patients showed to improve outcomes and reduce mortality, mainly in those with moderate to severe disease. Further investigation through controlled clinical trials is warranted.

Practice Patterns in the Initiation of Secondary Vasopressors and Adjunctive Corticosteroids during Septic Shock in the US

RATIONALE

A central component of septic shock treatment is the infusion of vasopressors, most commonly starting with norepinephrine. However, the optimal approach and practice patterns to initiating adjunctive vasopressors and corticosteroids are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize practice pattern variation in the norepinephrine dose at which secondary vasopressors and adjunctive corticosteroids are initiated and to identify factors associated with a treatment strategy favoring secondary vasopressors to a treatment strategy favoring adjunctive corticosteroids among patients with septic shock on norepinephrine.

METHODS

We used a multicenter ICU database to identify patients with septic shock who were started on norepinephrine followed by an additional vasopressor or corticosteroids. We used multi-level models to determine the hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which additional vasopressors and corticosteroids were started, the percentage of variation in norepinephrine dose at the time of adjunctive treatment associated with hospital of admission, and the factors associated with choosing an 'additional vasopressor first' strategy vs. a 'corticosteroid first' strategy.

RESULTS

Among 4,401 patients with septic shock on norepinephrine, 1940 (44.0%) were started on adjuncts (1357 received an 'additional vasopressor first' strategy and 583 received a "corticosteroid first strategy). The hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which vasopressors were initiated ranged 6.4 mcg/min (95% CI 5.9-7.0 mcg/min) to 92.6 mcg/min (95% CI 72.8-113.0 mcg/min). The hospital risk-adjusted norepinephrine dose at which corticosteroids was initiated ranged 3.0 mcg/min (95% CI 2.4-3.8 mcg/min) to 32.7 mcg/min (95% CI 24.9-43.0 mcg/min). 25.1% (intraclass correlation coefficient 95% CI 24.8%, 25.5%) of the variation in norepinephrine dose at which additional vasopressors were initiated was explained by hospital site after adjusting for all hospital- and patient-level covariates. Hospital of admission was strongly associated with receiving an 'additional vasopressor first' over a 'corticosteroids first' strategy (median odds ratio 3.28 (95% CI 2.81-3.83)).

CONCLUSIONS

Practice patterns for adjunctive therapies to norepinephrine during septic shock are variable and are determined in large part by hospital of admission. These results inform several future studies seeking to improve septic shock management.

COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines: Do They Really Reflect Best Medical Practices to Manage the Pandemic?

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has been changing the world since December 2019. A comprehensive search into many COVID-19 treatment guidelines was conducted and reported in this article. This is a review paper to probe differences in COVID-19 managing strategies and explore the most common treatment plans among countries. Published guidelines from 23 countries and three references guidelines-until the end of 2020-were included in this article. The majority of COVID-19 treatment options were reported in this review and it includes antiviral drugs, antimalarial drugs, antibiotics, corticosteroids, immunotherapy, anticoagulants, and other pharmacological treatment. The presence of such information from different countries in a single comprehensive review article could help in understanding and speculation of variation in the recommended treatment in each country. This might be related to the cost of medications, the access to the medications, availability of medication that could potentially be useful in managing COVID-19 cases, and the availability/capacity of healthcare facilities. Finally, although there are various treatment groups listed in the published therapeutic guidelines worldwide, unfortunately, there is no evidence for effectiveness of most of these medications in reducing the COVID-19 mortality curve over more than one year of this global pandemic.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Emerging therapeutic targets for sepsis

Introduction: Sepsis is characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis-associated morbidity/mortality demands concerted research efforts toward therapeutic interventions which are reliable, broadly effective, and etiologically based. More intensive and extensive investigations on alterations in cellular signaling pathways, gene targeting as a means of modifying the characteristic hyper and/or hypo-immune responses, prevention through optimization of the microbiome, and the molecular pathways underlying the septic immune response could improve outcomes.] Areas covered: The authors discuss key experimental mammalian models and clinical trials. They provide an evaluation of evolving therapeutics in sepsis and how they have built upon past and current treatments. Relevant literature was derived from a PubMed search spanning 1987-2020.Expert opinion: Given the complex nature of sepsis and the elicited immune response, it is not surprising that a single cure-all therapeutic intervention, which is capable of effectively and reliably improving patient outcomes has failed to emerge. Innovative approaches seek to address not only the disease process but modify underlying patient factors. A true improvement in sepsis-associated morbidity/mortality will require a combination of unique therapeutic modalities.

Interpretation of the endocrinology of hospital inpatients

Blood tests to assess the endocrine system are commonly performed in patients admitted to hospital. This may be because an endocrinopathy is thought to be aetiological in the presenting disease or suspected as an incidental occurrence by the clinician. Many patients, in addition to the pathology leading to admission, frequently have one or more comorbidities, a change in nutritional status and polypharmacy. Added to this, presentation with acute illness is a major life stress. All of these are likely to impact on one or more endocrine axes, although often only transiently. Endocrine evaluation in the vast majority of cases can be safely deferred to the outpatient setting. This article considers the most common endocrine anomalies discovered in hospital, the confounders, and provides guidance on how to investigate these further.

Sepsis in the critically ill patient: current and emerging management strategies

Introduction: Sepsis, a dysregulated host response to infection, is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early identification and evidence-based treatment of sepsis are associated with improved outcomes.Areas covered: This narrative review was undertaken following a PubMed search for English language reports published before July 2020 using the terms 'sepsis,' 'septic shock,' 'fluids,' 'fluid therapy,' 'albumin,' 'corticosteroids,' 'vasopressor.' Emerging management strategies were identified following a search of the ClinicalTrails.gov database using the term 'sepsis.' Additional reports were identified by examining the reference lists of selected articles and based on personnel knowledge of the field of sepsis.Expert opinion: The core treatment of sepsis relies on source control, early antibiotics, and organ support. The main emerging strategies focus on immunomodulation, artificial intelligence, and on multi-omics approaches for a personalized therapy.

Plasma Cortisol, Aldosterone, and Ascorbic Acid Concentrations in Patients with Septic Shock Do Not Predict Treatment Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality. A Nested Cohort Study

Rationale: Whether biomarkers can identify subgroups of patients with septic shock with differential treatment responses to hydrocortisone is unknown.Objectives: To determine if there is heterogeneity in effect for hydrocortisone on mortality, shock resolution, and other clinical outcomes based on baseline cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid concentrations.Methods: From May 2014 to April 2017, we obtained serum samples from 529 patients with septic shock from 22 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand.Measurements and Main Results: There were no significant interactions between the association with 90-day mortality and treatment with either hydrocortisone or placebo for total cortisol (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.16 vs. OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13; P = 0.70), free cortisol (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38 vs. OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P = 0.75), aldosterone (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05 vs. OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.04; P = 0.99), or ascorbic acid (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39 vs. OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.22; P = 0.70), respectively. Similar results were observed for the association with shock resolution. Elevated free cortisol was significantly associated with 90-day mortality (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.27; P = 0.04), but total cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid were not.Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, there was no heterogeneity in effect of adjunctive hydrocortisone on mortality, shock resolution, or other clinical outcomes based on cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid concentrations. Plasma aldosterone and ascorbic acid concentrations are not associated with outcome.

Association between thrombomodulin and high mobility group box 1 in sepsis patients

BACKGROUND

High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) has been studied as a molecule associated with severe outcomes in sepsis and thrombomodulin (TM) seems to decrease HMGB1 activity.

AIM

To investigate the role of the thrombomodulin/high mobility group box 1 (T/H) ratio in patients with sepsis and their association with their clinic, testing the hypothesis that higher ratios are associated with better outcomes.

METHODS

Twenty patients diagnosed with sepsis or septic shock, according to the 2016 criteria sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3), were studied. Patients were followed until they left the intensive care unit or until they achieved 28 d of hospitalization (D28). The following clinical outcomes were observed: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score; Need for mechanical pulmonary ventilation; Presence of septic shock; Occurrence of sepsis-induced coagulopathy; Need for renal replacement therapy (RRT); and Death.

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with SOFA scores greater than or equal to 12 points had higher serum levels of TM: 76.41 ± 29.21 pg/mL vs 37.41 ± 22.55 pg/mL among those whose SOFA scores were less than 12 points, P = 0.003. The T/H ratio was also higher in patients whose SOFA scores were greater than or equal to 12 points, P = 0.001. The T/H ratio was, on average, three times higher in patients in need of RRT (0.38 ± 0.14 vs 0.11 ± 0.09), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Higher serum levels of TM and, therefore, higher T/H ratio in the first 24 h after the diagnosis of sepsis were associated with more severe disease and the need for renal replacement therapy, while those with better clinical outcomes and those who were discharged before D28 showed a tendency for lower T/H ratio values.

A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations.

RESULTS

The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship.

CONCLUSION

Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.

Palestinian strategies, guidelines, and challenges in the treatment and management of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a global concern and the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared it as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has quickly and effectively responded to the outbreak of COVID-19, using an internationally and nationally coordinated, to contain the spread of the virus within the borders. The PA approaches are containment and suppression, which is designed to protect the citizens from infection while also mitigating the stress on the health care system. The PA immediately declared a State of Emergency when the first cases in Palestine were diagnosed on 5 March 2020 and launched robust national containment measures to encourage the citizens to protect themselves and follow the guidance.

OBJECTIVES

There is currently no vaccine or effective treatment for COVID-19, the treatment is either supportive and/ or the treatment of symptoms. Several strategies in the treatment of the disease were applied including medications. This review aims to summarize the different strategies, guidelines, challenges, and treatments used against COVID-19 worldwide and in Palestine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Different literature and guidelines among different databases were searched. Literature reviewing was conducted using the following search engines, Google Scholar, Medline, Pub Med, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Science Direct. Data also obtained from WHO and PA reports, and the published peer-reviewed articles of 2019-nCoV. The review focuses on the strategies, guidelines, therapeutics, challenges, and different approaches used in the treatment and management of the disease in Palestine and globally.

CONCLUSION

The Palestinian Ministry of Health (MoH) strategies to end the COVID-19 pandemic were; slow and stop transmission; provide optimized care for patients; and minimize the impact of the epidemic on health systems, social services, and economic activity. Thus, proper management, right actions, and effective treatment of the disease should be considered to achieve these strategies. The biggest problem for PA to control and stop the outbreak of the disease is the different challenges which include; the Israeli military and economic control, uncontrol the borders, shortage of medical and financial resources, crowded cities and refugee camps, poverty, food insecurity, and the financial crisis. To date, there are no specific vaccines or medicines for COVID-19; and treatments are under investigation through clinical trials. However, an array of drugs approved for other indications, as well as multiple investigational agents, are being studied for the treatment of COVID-19; in several hundred clinical trials around the World. Treatment is essentially supportive and symptomatic.

Emergency Department Management of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based Approach

The novel coronavirus, SARs-CoV-2, causes a clinical disease known as COVID-19. Since being declared a global pandemic, a significant amount of literature has been produced and guidelines are rapidly changing as more light is shed on this subject. Decisions regarding disposition must be made with attention to comorbidities. Multiple comorbidities portend a worse prognosis. Many clinical decision tools have been postulated; however, as of now, none have been validated. Laboratory testing available to the emergency physician is nonspecific but does show promise in helping prognosticate and risk stratify. Radiographic testing can also aid in the process. Escalating oxygen therapy seems to be a safe and effective therapy; delaying intubation for only the most severe cases in which respiratory muscle fatigue or mental status demands this. Despite thrombotic concerns in COVID-19, the benefit of anticoagulation in the emergency department (ED) seems to be minimal. Data regarding adjunctive therapies such as steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories are variable with no concrete recommendations, although steroids may decrease mortality in those patients developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. With current guidelines in mind, we propose a succinct flow sheet for both the escalation of oxygen therapy as well as ED management and disposition of these patients.

Hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone in COVID-19: who won and who lost?

BACKGROUND

On June 30, 2020, the WHO reported over 10 millions of COVID-19 cases worldwide with over half a million deaths. In severe cases the disease progresses into an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), which in turn depends on an overproduction of cytokines (IL-6, TNFα, IL-12, IL-8, CCL-2 and IL1) that causes alveolar and vascular lung damage. Clearly, it is essential to find an immunological treatment that controls the "cytokine storm". In the meantime, however, it is essential to have effective antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs available immediately.

PHARMACOLOGIC THERAPY FOR COVID-19

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine have been widely adopted worldwide for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. However, the choice of this treatment was based on low quality of evidence, i.e. retrospective, non-randomized controlled studies. Recently, four large Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been performed in record time delivering reliable data: (1) the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RCT included 60 hospitals participating all over the world and showed the efficacy of remdesivir in reducing the recovery time in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia; (2) three large RCTs already completed, for hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone and Lopinavir and Ritonavir respectively. These trials were done under the umbrella of the 'Recovery' project, headed by the University of Oxford. The project includes 176 participating hospitals in the UK and was set up to verify the efficacy of some of the treatments used for COVID-19. These three 'Recovery' RCTs concluded definitely: (a) that treatment with hydroxychloroquine provides no benefits in patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (b) that treatment with dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in COVID-19 patients that were mechanically ventilated, and by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen only; (c) that the combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir is not effective in reducing mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these four large RCTs have provided sound indications to doctors for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and prompted the correction of many institutional provisions and guidelines on COVID-19 treatments (i.e. FDA, NIH, UK Health Service, etc.). Even though a definitive treatment for COVID-19 has not yet been found, large RCTs stand as the Gold Standards for COVID-19 therapy and offer a solid scientific base on which to base treatment decisions.

The cost-effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroids for patients with septic shock

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone is a cost-effective treatment for patients with septic shock.

DESIGN

Data linkage-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

New South Wales and Queensland intensive care units.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

Patients with septic shock randomly assigned to treatment with hydrocortisone or placebo in the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health-related quality of life at 6 months using the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire. Data on hospital resource use and costs were obtained by linking the ADRENAL dataset to government administrative health databases. Clinical outcomes included mortality, health-related quality of life, and quality-adjusted life-years gained; economic outcomes included hospital resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness from the health care payer perspective. We also assessed cost-effectiveness by sex. To increase the precision of cost-effectiveness estimates, we conducted unrestricted bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Of 3800 patients in the ADRENAL trial, 1772 (46.6%) were eligible and 1513 (85.4% of those eligible) were included. There was no difference between hydrocortisone or placebo groups in regards to mortality (218/742 [29.4%] v 227/759 [29.9%]; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.12; P = 0.47), mean number of QALYs gained (0.10 ± 0.09 v 0.10 ± 0.09; P = 0.52), or total hospital costs (A$73 515 ± 61 376 v A$69 748 ± 61 793; mean difference, A$3767; 95% CI, -A$2891 to A$10 425; P = 0.27). The incremental cost of hydrocortisone was A$1 254 078 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In females, hydrocortisone was cost-effective in 46.2% of bootstrapped replications and in males it was cost-effective in 2.7% of bootstrapped replications.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive hydrocortisone did not significantly affect longer term mortality, health-related quality of life, health care resource use or costs, and is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Therapeutic management of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11th March 2020. The treatment guidelines for COVID-19 vary between countries, yet there is no approved treatment to date.

AIM

To report any evidence of therapeutics used for the management of patients with COVID-19 in clinical practice since emergence of the virus.

METHODS

A systematic review protocol was developed based on the PRISMA statement. Articles for review were selected from Embase, Medline and Google Scholar. Readily accessible peer-reviewed, full articles in English published from 1st December 2019 to 26th March 2020 were included. The search terms included combinations of: COVID, SARS-COV-2, glucocorticoids, convalescent plasma, antiviral and antibacterial. There were no restrictions on the types of study eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-nine articles were identified in the literature search; of these, 41 studies were included in this review. These were clinical trials (N=3), case reports (N=7), case series (N=10), and retrospective (N=11) and prospective (N=10) observational studies. Thirty-six studies were conducted in China (88%). Corticosteroid treatment was reported most frequently (N=25), followed by lopinavir (N=21) and oseltamivir (N=16).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review to date related to medication used to treat patients with COVID-19. Only 41 studies were eligible for inclusion, most of which were conducted in China. Corticosteroid treatment was reported most frequently in the literature.

Early administration of glucocorticoid for thyroid storm: analysis of a national administrative database

Background

Thyroid storm is a life-threatening disease with a mortality rate of over 10%. Although glucocorticoids have been recommended as a treatment option for thyroid storm, supportive evidence based on a large-scale clinical research is lacking. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the beneficial effects of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe thyroid storm.

Methods

A retrospective nationwide cohort study was conducted using a Japanese national administrative claims database. Patients admitted to intensive care units due to severe thyroid storm between the financial years 2013 and 2017 were included in the study. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were mortality within 30 days and insulin administration during hospitalization. Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and Bayesian estimation using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC), in addition to propensity score matching (PSM), were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 811 patients were included in the study, of which 600 patients were treated with glucocorticoids, and 211 patients were treated without glucocorticoids. The early administration of glucocorticoids was not associated with a significant improvement in the in-hospital mortality of patients with thyroid storm [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.77 (0.95–3.34), 1.44 (1.14–1.93), and 1.46 (0.72–3.00) in the GLMM (MLE), GLMM (MCMC), and PSM, respectively]. The results of mortality within 30 days were almost identical to the results of in-hospital mortality. However, insulin use was significantly higher in the glucocorticoid group.

Conclusions

This analysis of a nationwide administrative database indicates that the administration of glucocorticoids does not improve the survival of patients with thyroid storm.

Controversies in the application of corticosteroids for pediatric septic shock treatment: a preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis-compliant updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Septic shock is the major cause of childhood mortality. However, the application of corticosteroids remains controversial. This work aimed to analyze the source of controversy based on existing data and recent randomized controlled trials by meta-analysis and to assess whether it can avoid these factors to guide clinical treatment.

METHODS

We searched the public databases up to 8 June 2019 and included only randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was mortality. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and dose-response meta-analysis were performed in this work.

RESULTS

We included twelve studies consisting of 701 children in the meta-analysis. For primary outcome, the fixed-effect model showed steroids could significantly reduce the mortality compared to the control (Odds Ratio: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.98; P = .041). However, the random-effect model showed a negative result (Odds Ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.51; P = .252). None of the subgroup results rejected the null hypothesis that the overall effect equaled zero. Dose-response effect analysis showed that increased dosage at a low dosage might reduce the mortality, while at a high dosage, increasing the dose might increase the mortality. Moreover, the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation level of evidence is low for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid application is not recommended for septic shock children under current medical conditions.

Immunomodulatory therapy for the management of severe COVID-19. Beyond the anti-viral therapy: A comprehensive review

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome related to Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) may cause severe illness in 20% of patients. This may be in part due to an uncontrolled immune-response to SARS-CoV-2 infection triggering a systemic hyperinflammatory response, the so-called "cytokine storm". The reduction of this inflammatory immune-response could be considered as a potential therapeutic target against severe COVID-19. The relationship between inflammation and clot activation must also be considered. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that currently, no specific antiviral treatment is available for SARS-CoV-2. While moderate-severe forms need in-hospital surveillance plus antivirals and/or hydroxychloroquine; in severe and life-threating subsets a high intensity anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapy could be a therapeutic option. However, right data on the effectiveness of different immunomodulating drugs are scarce. Herein, we discuss the pathogenesis and the possible role played by drugs such as: antimalarials, anti-IL6, anti-IL-1, calcineurin and JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, heparins, angiotensin-converting enzyme agonists and statins in severe COVID-19.

The anti-viral facet of anti-rheumatic drugs: Lessons from COVID-19

The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has posed the world at a pandemic risk. Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which causes pneumonia, requires intensive care unit hospitalization in about 10% of cases and can lead to a fatal outcome. Several efforts are currently made to find a treatment for COVID-19 patients. So far, several anti-viral and immunosuppressive or immunomodulating drugs have demonstrated some efficacy on COVID-19 both in vitro and in animal models as well as in cases series. In COVID-19 patients a pro-inflammatory status with high levels of interleukin (IL)-1B, IL-1 receptor (R)A and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α has been demonstrated. Moreover, high levels of IL-6 and TNF-α have been observed in patients requiring intensive-care-unit hospitalization. This provided rationale for the use of anti-rheumatic drugs as potential treatments for this severe viral infection. Other agents, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine might have a direct anti-viral effect. The anti-viral aspect of immunosuppressants towards a variety of viruses has been known since long time and it is herein discussed in the view of searching for a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Should we stimulate or suppress immune responses in COVID-19? Cytokine and anti-cytokine interventions

The coronavirus disease-19 pandemic (COVID-19), which appeared in China in December 2019 and rapidly spread throughout the world, has forced clinicians and scientists to take up extraordinary challenges. This unprecedented situation led to the inception of numerous fundamental research protocols and many clinical trials. It quickly became apparent that although COVID-19, in the vast majority of cases, was a benign disease, it could also develop a severe form with sometimes fatal outcomes. Cytokines are central to the pathophysiology of COVID-19; while some of them are beneficial (type-I interferon, interleukin-7), others appear detrimental (interleukin-1β, -6, and TNF-α) particularly in the context of the so-called cytokine storm. Yet another characteristic of the disease has emerged: concomitant immunodeficiency, notably involving impaired type-I interferon response, and lymphopenia. This review provides an overview of current knowledge on COVID-19 immunopathology. We discuss the defective type-I IFN response, the theoretical role of IL-7 to restore lymphocyte repertoire, as well as we mention the two patterns observed in severe COVID-19 (i.e. interleukin-1β-driven macrophage activation syndrome vs. interleukin-6-driven immune dysregulation). Next, reviewing current evidence drawn from clinical trials, we examine a number of cytokine and anti-cytokine therapies, including interleukin-1, -6, and TNF inhibitors, as well as less targeted therapies, such as corticosteroids, chloroquine, or JAK inhibitors.

Interim Guidelines on Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19

Since the first case was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on December 12, 2019, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely to other countries since January 2020. As of April 16, 2020, 10635 confirmed cases have been reported, with 230 deaths in Korea. COVID-19 patients may be asymptomatic or show various clinical manifestations, including acute symptoms such as fever, fatigue, sore throat; pneumonia presenting as acute respiratory distress syndrome; and multiple organ failure. As COVID-19 has such varied clinical manifestations and case fatality rates, no standard antiviral therapy regimen has been established other than supportive therapy. In the present guideline, we aim to introduce potentially helpful antiviral and other drug therapies based on in vivo and in vitro research and clinical experiences from many countries.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

An Update on Current Therapeutic Drugs Treating COVID-19

The current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has presented unprecedented challenges to the healthcare systems in almost every country around the world. Currently, there are no proven effective vaccines or therapeutic agents against the virus. Current clinical management includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care including supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilatory support. Evolving research and clinical data regarding the virologic SARS-CoV-2 suggest a potential list of repurposed drugs with appropriate pharmacological effects and therapeutic efficacies in treating COVID-19 patients. In this review, we will update and summarize the most common and plausible drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. These drugs and therapeutic agents include antiviral agents (remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, lopinavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, and oseltamivir), and supporting agents (Ascorbic acid, Azithromycin, Corticosteroids, Nitric oxide, IL-6 antagonists), among others. We hope that this review will provide useful and most updated therapeutic drugs to prevent, control, and treat COVID-19 patients until the approval of vaccines and specific drugs targeting SARS-CoV-2.

Should we stimulate or suppress immune responses in COVID-19? Cytokine and anti-cytokine interventions

The coronavirus disease-19 pandemic (COVID-19), which appeared in China in December 2019 and rapidly spread throughout the world, has forced clinicians and scientists to take up extraordinary challenges. This unprecedented situation led to the inception of numerous fundamental research protocols and many clinical trials. It quickly became apparent that although COVID-19, in the vast majority of cases, was a benign disease, it could also develop a severe form with sometimes fatal outcomes. Cytokines are central to the pathophysiology of COVID-19; while some of them are beneficial (type-I interferon, interleukin-7), others appear detrimental (interleukin-1β, -6, and TNF-α) particularly in the context of the so-called cytokine storm. Yet another characteristic of the disease has emerged: concomitant immunodeficiency, notably involving impaired type-I interferon response, and lymphopenia. This review provides an overview of current knowledge on COVID-19 immunopathology. We discuss the defective type-I IFN response, the theoretical role of IL-7 to restore lymphocyte repertoire, as well as we mention the two patterns observed in severe COVID-19 (i.e. interleukin-1β-driven macrophage activation syndrome vs. interleukin-6-driven immune dysregulation). Next, reviewing current evidence drawn from clinical trials, we examine a number of cytokine and anti-cytokine therapies, including interleukin-1, -6, and TNF inhibitors, as well as less targeted therapies, such as corticosteroids, chloroquine, or JAK inhibitors.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Background

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

Methods

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

Results

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.

Conclusion

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.